[We are talking here about personhood under the 14th Amendment
and taking from corporations the rights that should be reserved
for natural persons. Corporations would remain artificial entities
under the law, sometimes called artificial persons, but more properly
called artificial entities.]

There are two broad areas that could change. One is directly
related to corporations not being persons for the purposes of
the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments. The other is the critically
important secondary effect of what can be achieved if we push
corporations out of the political process, which can be achieved
only if we remove their personhood. Knowing exactly what would
or could change has to be based on what changes have been made,
or prevented, since the establishment of corporate personhood
as a legal principle in 1886.

Fortunately we do have a road map of sorts, a mirror image
of this issue. In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Plessy v. Ferguson,
effectively declared that Anegros@ were not protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment, were not in fact the persons it was meant
to protect. In 1956 in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme
Court ruled so that suddenly ANegroes@ again became full legal
persons. I hope I don't need to describe the plight of African-Americans
and other people of color during the period from 1896 to 1956,
nor will I recount the campaign necessary to get the court to
change its mind in 1956.

Were African-Americans (and others classified as non-white)
suddenly better off the day after the 1956 ruling? Potentially
yes, but factually no. It took years of protests, court cases,
legislative changes, changes in people's awareness and semantics,
and even many people's murders at the hands of those who opposed
change, before African-Americans began to be treated, legally,
socially, and economically, as citizens and persons. The process
is not yet complete.

When corporate personhood is terminated, whether it be by a
Supreme Court decision, an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
or by State or Federal legislation that will hold up in court,
the next day it may seem like nothing really has changed. But
the potential for change will be as great as it was for people
of color after Brown v. Board of Education.

Just as in 1956 you could predict that, finally guaranteed
the protection of the Federal Government under the Fourteenth
Amendment, people of color might soon be able to shop with white
people, have the vote, elect people of color to office, and make
substantial economic gains, we can predict what can happen after
the ending of corporate personhood. But these things will not
happen unless there are years of protests, court cases, legislation,
and changes in people's awareness. We can't predict the details,
but since we know what has been obstructed in the past, we can
see what freedoms the people might gain once we begin to end corporate
dominance.

Corporate personhood is at the root of such Supreme Court rulings
as First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti [435 U.S. 765 (1978)],
which equate corporate donations to political campaigns with free
speech. They allow corporate money to govern the political process.
These rulings can be reversed once the 1886 decision is reversed,
since they are directly dependent upon it. Then we should be able
to force corporations out of the political process. We could do
this through legislation or through the chartering process. Without
personhood the corporations are not entitled to 1st Amendment
rights; they will have only what privileges the people, through
our government, gives them. We can and should prohibit them from
making any kind of contribution to politicians, to lobbying groups,
or to campaigns involving referenda. Any advertising that does
not sell products, that is, any advertising meant to directly
or indirectly affect the political process, should be prohibited.

Later in this essay the secondary effects of removing corporations
and their money from the political decision making (including
regulatory) process will be examined. First other changes that
are directly dependent upon revoking corporate personhood need
examining.

Without the protection of the 14th Amendment, corporations
could be purposefully discriminated against in legislation. It
would even become possible to discriminate against particular
types and sizes of corporations. The citizens would thereby gain
much greater control over the economy, both nationally and at
the local level. For instance, the Supreme Court in the past,
based on corporate personhood, has held that States and localities
cannot favor small or local businesses over corporate chain stores
or out-of-state businesses, as in Liggett v. Lee [288 U.S. 517
(1933)]. Towns that want all business to be local, or even that
want to keep out certain chains but allow others, will be able
to have that control, if they wish. They could also finally have
truly effective Abad
boy@ laws, as opposed
to the current ineffective ones (because we'll be able to limit
corporations appeals to the courts).

Without personhood the due process used for corporations could
be different than the due process used for individuals or unincorporated
businesses. As an illustration, corporations might only be allowed
a single hearing when their actions effect an endangered species,
rather than the current system where they can spend millions of
dollars of their own money, and of taxpayer money, and of the
non-profit environmental groups that oppose them, in an unending
series of appeals and diversionary legal filings.

Another example would be that corporate charters, granted by
the states, might channel certain types of corporate wrongdoing
into special courts where justice is swift and stern, including
the immediate closing of businesses that violate environmental,
consumer safety, or labor laws.

Another important constitutional Aright@ given to corporations is
protection under the 4th Amendment, which states, AThe
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons to be seized.@ The key Supreme Court decision
here was Hale v. Henkel [201 U.S. 43 (1906)], which established
that corporations have protection under the 4th Amendment based
in part on their status as persons. It was decided that a subpoena
issued by a federal grand jury to the secretary of a corporation,
MacAndrews & Forbes Company, amounted to such an unreasonable
search and seizure. This ruling made it difficult to enforce the
Sherman anti-monopoly act, which naturally required the papers
of corporations in order to determine if there existed grounds
for an indictment. Oddly the same ruling recognized it would be
very hard to give the 5th Amendment right that Anor
shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself,@
because a corporation, not being a natural person, cannot testify
at all. It can be represented in court by natural persons, who
cannot take the 5th on the corporation's behalf, because you only
have the right to not incriminate yourself; you have no immunity
to testify against other persons.

The importance of the 4th Amendment right of corporate persons
is shown, among other places, in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. [436
U.S. 307 (1978)]. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(OSHA), enacted to try to get employees safe working environments,
allowed for surprise inspections of workplaces. These inspections
were struck down by the Supreme Court, which declared that OSHA
inspections required either the corporation's permission or a
warrant to take place. Apparently the constitutional personhood
rights of corporations trump the rights of real persons. Thousands
of workers have died, been maimed, or poisoned since 1978, while
on the job; many of these accidents were preventable, but the
Supreme Court did not consider the liberty of the workers, only
the liberty of corporations and their wealthy owners in making
this murderous decision. No workplace that follows OSHA safety
rules need fear a surprise inspection.

Revoking corporate personhood would allow the government to
make reasonable inspections to insure worker safety, to insure
that toxic substances are not being emitted, and to insure that
corporations are operating as allowed by their charters and the
law. Revoking personhood should not be feared by law-abiding,
legitimate businesses and corporations who are obeying the law.

We now return to the possible secondary results of ending corporate
personhood and getting corporations out of the political process.

With corporations out of the political process the whole nature
of regulation would change for the better. Whether regarding the
environment or food safety, we would not have to compromise with
powerful corporate political machines. Do the people want to prohibit
clear-cutting? Then the laws will prohibit clear-cutting, because
no politician will be on a wood-products corporation's payroll.
Do the people want zero emissions into streams and rivers? Then
the law will prohibit any and all toxic emissions, because the
politicians will rely on people for votes, not on polluting corporations
for money to buy votes.

The main roadblock to single-payer, national health care has
been the enormous amount of lobbying and campaign contributions
from those corporations that profit from the current system. By
prohibiting corporate-sponsored campaign contributions to politicians
and corporate-sponsored propaganda on television, the national
consensus in favor of national health care could no longer be
thwarted.

Ending corporate personhood is no more a magic-bullet than
was the Brown v. Ferguson ruling, or the passing of the Fourteenth
Amendment itself. As long as there is a society there will be
struggle over how resources, including political powers, are allocated.
Ending corporate personhood would result, not in a level playing
field, but in a field where We the People have the advantage again,
where in any particular issue that is fought out in the public
arena, the people are more likely to win than the corporations.